| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 07:01 pm |
My colleagues have made their points extremely well, nix, so I won't repeat their statements.
You are talking about economic principles such as utility and the concept of unlimited want. Marx introduced the concept of "from each according to his his ability to each according to his need."
The problem with such thinking is that these things cannot be fairly quantified and assigned to meet the entirely variable and varied conditions to allow for individual's happiness.
What does anyone "need"?
How can I answer that for you or you for me?
Or some government agency for either of us?
This is the fundamental difference between a free market and command economies.
In the free market, you decide what you need and want and how you intend to earn the means to satisfy both. You may suceed or not.
In the other, you are told what you need and perhaps it may even be provided on a reasonably consistent basis. But history has shown us that shared misery is the most common outcome.
I do understand your distaste for the excesses of our system. I share many of them. Some may find it distasteful that my family has all that it does while others have next to nothing. But by comparison, I could be considered a pauper when looking at others.
Life is not fair. It never will be because everyone has a different definition and standard of measure of what is fair.
The noble intention of equality of outcome is simply incompatible with freedom. And freedom has proven itself to be the key ingredient to providing societies with the greatest amount of prosperity and hapiness for its members, though at varying levels.
Some people will always want they don't have. It is part of human nature. To them, it is need.
Do you have the right to tell them they are wrong if they are willing to work to satisfy their desires?
Little fact of history for you. Societies that have tried to do just that have slaughtered more of their own people than have died in all external wars COMBINED.
And still failed.